Why did Apple drop the mini? :(

[Gibson Les Paul]

I liked the mini. I don't like that they replaced the mini with the nano. Less space, and you pay more. 199 for 2gb and 249 for 4gb? Bah, 199 for a 4gb mini and 249 for a 6gb mini is a lot better deal, regardless of how thin the nano is.

I'm probably being stupid, but I don't think I will ever consider the nano for that price.

[DeSnousa]

To create less confusion in the iPod line up, imagine if they kept the mini :eek: The good news is if you want a mini you can still find it at a discounted price :)

[dops7107]

I'm probably being stupid, but I don't think I will ever consider the nano for that price.

I'm with you on this one. Don't forget you pay to be an early adopter*... be patient and a better one will be around the corner.

* NB: this doesn't apply to the Mac Mini, where the next generation was more expensive and barely any better here in the UK. Early adopters like me got a deal!

[Gibson Les Paul]

To create less confusion in the iPod line up, imagine if they kept the mini :eek: The good news is if you want a mini you can still find it at a discounted price :)

Yeah, which is great. :) I still don't think the nano is worth it for that price. :( Heh, my friend bought a 6gb mini 2 days before the nano was introduced!

[El Phantasmo]

They didn't really drop the mini... as I see it, the nano is just a better mini (flash instead of hard drive, color screen, smaller form factor, more features, etc) but since they couldnt get up to 6GB with flash memory, they just changed the name and marketed the new version as a new product line...

anyway... with 2, 4 or 6 GB, I dont think you'd be able to carry all your music at once.. you will always need to "refresh" your playlist.. so I dont see the 4GB vs 6GB argument as that big of a deal...

just my opinion

[mrgreen4242]

I liked the mini. I don't like that they replaced the mini with the nano. Less space, and you pay more. 199 for 2gb and 249 for 4gb? Bah, 199 for a 4gb mini and 249 for a 6gb mini is a lot better deal, regardless of how thin the nano is.

I'm probably being stupid, but I don't think I will ever consider the nano for that price.

Just to piss you off! BWAHAHAHAHA!

Nah, j/k, Apple is just trying to stay ahead of the curve. Some of the competitors are starting to "catch up" to the mini. They are able to offer the same capacity at a (often) better price, in a 'similar' form factor. By creating a new device that is smaller, thinner, with some nice new features they a 'moving target' that the competition will have to keep trying to 'be like Apple'.

[Bob_Barker]

Some time next year you will see the 4GB/6GB versions at the current prices. The component costs are a lot higher when you are dealing with flash. I think it's similar to the argument between the mini and the full-sized iPod. You are paying for the size and features, not for the capacity. A lot of people thought the mini was a mistake when it debuted at less than a third of the storage of the smallest iPod for only $50 less. Although this is a replacement instead of a supplement, I think the size and feature benefits are even more significant than going from the full-sized iPods to the minis. And remember, it's only been since February of this year that you could get the 6GB version. Prior to that the mini only came in the 4GB, and it had the same pricetag as the 4GB nano. Apple is doing what it needs to do to stay on top. Although the mini was very successful, the design was almost two years old and was bound to start showing its age. They've kept it fresh and I admire their boldness in trashing a successful product for something better.

[bleek]

Yeah, which is great. :) I still don't think the nano is worth it for that price. :( Heh, my friend bought a 6gb mini 2 days before the nano was introduced!
wow i bought 1 like a week before it went off the line too lol.

[wrxguy]

they dropped it cause they are bringing in the Nano...you should have noticed that apple drops ipod lines all the time (i.e. the 30gig the 40 gig etc.)

[rainman::|:|]

short answer: why did apple drop the mini? because they had to do something ballsy or they'd wind up losing their sheen. You paid a price for fashion. Pisses you off, doesn't it? :)

But on the other hand, that fashion is what makes Apple so amazing, so you just have to accept it...

[zelmo]

Just to piss you off! BWAHAHAHAHA!

Nah, j/k, Apple is just trying to stay ahead of the curve. Some of the competitors are starting to "catch up" to the mini. They are able to offer the same capacity at a (often) better price, in a 'similar' form factor. By creating a new device that is smaller, thinner, with some nice new features they a 'moving target' that the competition will have to keep trying to 'be like Apple'.

Yes, and it is an interesting maneuver that not many companies would risk - pulling your best selling product and bringing out something quite different. Creative and Sony (et al) have been targeting the mini for months, and will now be hard pressed to switch gears and bring out a "nano killer" before the holiday season is already over. If this works as planned, Apple will see it's already dominant market share increase over the next 6 months.
Ballsy enough to work.

[Sun Baked]

And a 2GB and 4GB flash memory will set you back how much at CompUSA?

It's not like it's too cheap at the moment and Apple is ripping people off, but the 4GB device shouldn't be too out of line with a straight flash drive.

[conditionals]

See, before I bought a nano, I couldn't see apple's logic for dropping the mini. All the colours, the mass appeal etc, better space/battery etc.

But then, after owning a nano for a few days, I can hardly bear to look at my big fat chunkmaster mini. It feels SO old and crap. And everybody else who has seen my nano agrees.

[ZoomZoomZoom]

agreed with conditionals. although i'd like to see apple come out with something in the 10GB range to fill the enormous void.

and yeah, it's probably because of the product differentiation. apple's already cutting their profits with the nano at $249 (according to cnet) because of the component costs. keeping the 6gb mini at $249 to compete with a 4gb nano would have made it a hard choice for some people. same price, less space, color screen... all of a sudden, it's not adding 50 bucks to get more memory, and it becomes weighing one thing against another. just 0.02

[jholzner]

Also, the 6GB minis were "hardly" selling, at least compared to the 4GBm minis. 4GB seems to be the sweet spot for the lower capacity mp3 player.

[Demon Hunter]

Nano doesn't match my PowerBook ;)

The question is how will they improve the Nano :confused:

[Lord Blackadder]

When The iPod Mini came out some people on MR complained about the cost-per-MB disadvantage over the regular iPod."Nobody will buy it because it's too low capacity for the money", or "It's a bad deal compared to the iPod". Well, they were wrong. They flew off the shelves. Deja Vu with the Nano threads.

I don't think that the capacity will be a critical issue for sales. People who are really worried about capacity will get a 60GB iPod. 2 and 4GB is enough space for a lot of people who won't mind swapping out music rather than dumping their whole library onboard.

The Mini sold because of it's brand image and form factor. The Nano will sell well because of it's brand image, form factor and color screen.

[Artful Dodger]

Lord Blackadder

The Mini sold because of it's brand image and form factor. The Nano will sell well because of it's brand image, form factor and color screen.

Very good point and if a student/teen/adult has just enough money to get a Nano but not an iPod most won't wait, just gotta have it fever ;)
Plus easy to travel with or even better during a workout. Hey I got a Mini with my new iMac just before the Nano came out and I don't think twice about it since I'm just waiting for my rebate to get here :D

[galstaph]

I ordered my mini 3 days after the nano came out. WOuld I have liked to get a nano, maybe, but I like that I'm getting a rebate instead. An 4gb is plenty for me as my library is only 2.7GB :p (should I be proud or ashamed?)
anyway, I might end up getting a nano next year, we'll see what the future brings. I still think they would complement my ibook more.... (and that black is hot!!)

[redAPPLE]

Just to piss you off! BWAHAHAHAHA!

Nah, j/k, Apple is just trying to stay ahead of the curve. Some of the competitors are starting to "catch up" to the mini. They are able to offer the same capacity at a (often) better price, in a 'similar' form factor. By creating a new device that is smaller, thinner, with some nice new features they a 'moving target' that the competition will have to keep trying to 'be like Apple'.

nice feature? like syncing only with usb? give me firewire800 syncing capability, Apple.

[zelmo]

agreed with conditionals. although i'd like to see apple come out with something in the 10GB range to fill the enormous void.

I used to feel like Apple needed to fill the size gap between the mini at 6GB and the iPod at 20gb, but have come to understand that they are correct to leave it as is. Either a person is content with having a decent cross section of their music collection to choose from (and 4GB is plenty for most people), or they want their whole collection at all times (and 20-60GB is fine). My guess is we won't ever see a nano with more than 6GB, or perhaps 8GB. I think we'll see a 100GB drive based iPod before too long, though. People who want to carry it all need more space.

[zelmo]

nice feature? like syncing only with usb? give me firewire800 syncing capability, Apple.

It'd be nice, and I also wish they'd left that capability in, but the reason Apple dropped it is because they now sell the vast majority of iPods to PC users these days, and they use USB 2.0. Would you still support a hardware solution that is required by a dwindling minority of your user base? Especially when USB 2.0 is generally fast enough for the smaller updates that most iPod users require after the initial load? And when every Mac sold in the past couple of years has USB 2.0? Anyone who is seriously concerned about the 5 seconds lost when syncing the iPod (via USB 2.0 instead of FW) with the new Opeth CD purchased from iTMS ought to find something better to do with their time.
Of course, if all you have is FW and a USB 1.1 port, I feel your pain. USB 1.1 is slooooow. Might have to buy a new Mac. Ooop! Apple wins again! :)

[Gibson Les Paul]

It'd be nice, and I also wish they'd left that capability in, but the reason Apple dropped it is because they now sell the vast majority of iPods to PC users these days, and they use USB 2.0. Would you still support a hardware solution that is required by a dwindling minority of your user base? Especially when USB 2.0 is generally fast enough for the smaller updates that most iPod users require after the initial load? And when every Mac sold in the past couple of years has USB 2.0? Anyone who is seriously concerned about the 5 seconds lost when syncing the iPod (via USB 2.0 instead of FW) with the new Opeth CD purchased from iTMS ought to find something better to do with their time.
Of course, if all you have is FW and a USB 1.1 port, I feel your pain. USB 1.1 is slooooow. Might have to buy a new Mac. Ooop! Apple wins again! :)

Heh, If i do consider getting a nano, then I might have to get a new mac. :P I'm using a Powermac G4 400mhz with a 1GHz processor upgrade. It has USB 1.1 which sucks. :( After I reach 100 posts, i'm going to take my G4 to the for sale section of this forum to sell or trade it. After that, I may consider a Powerbook, and perhaps, the nano. A portable computer+a nice portable music player+my music editing software+my guitar= One happy me. :cool:

[cbrad]

To me, the nano is ten times better then the mini. I love its color screen and size..

[Koodauw]

See, before I bought a nano, I couldn't see apple's logic for dropping the mini. All the colours, the mass appeal etc, better space/battery etc.

But then, after owning a nano for a few days, I can hardly bear to look at my big fat chunkmaster mini. It feels SO old and crap. And everybody else who has seen my nano agrees.

Having just received my Nano today, I would have to say that I feel the Mini is better built, and feels more solid. The mini feels more like a finished product, durable. I think a color screen would of been a better rout than the Nano, either that or drop the "Stupid Shuffle" as it was called in another thread, and keep a 6 GB mini.

[mcadam]

Having just been given a mini a few hours ago I'll choose to look on the bright side of it all - I expect buying lots of heavily discounted accessories in the near future :rolleyes:

A

[Mike Teezie]

I used to feel like Apple needed to fill the size gap between the mini at 6GB and the iPod at 20gb, but have come to understand that they are correct to leave it as is. Either a person is content with having a decent cross section of their music collection to choose from (and 4GB is plenty for most people), or they want their whole collection at all times (and 20-60GB is fine). My guess is we won't ever see a nano with more than 6GB, or perhaps 8GB. I think we'll see a 100GB drive based iPod before too long, though. People who want to carry it all need more space.

I used to be the same way. I was honestly a little worried that 4GB might not be enough for me, because I have around 8 gigs of music in my library, and Gen 2 20 gig iPod to store it all. I always had the peace of mind knowing my music collection could double, and I could carry it on my iPod.

But Steve's RDF nailed me, and so did the Nano. Mine will be here tomorrow.

I spent the last few hours making a folder in iTunes 5 called "Nano" and weeding a selection of playlists down to 4 gigs.

Bottom line? 4 gigs is a ton of music. I am very pleased with the library I'll be able to carry around with me - and at less than 1/5th size of my old iPod.